Email This Article
Your Name:
Your Email:
Email To:
Comment:
Optional
Authentication:  
0 + 6 = ?: (Required) Please type in the correct answer to the math question.

  
clear
You are sending a link to...
Re: Ahmadinejad to visit Iraq
Rebecca, Look on the bright side. This disturbs Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the Al-Thani in Qatar, the Al-Sabah in Kuwait, the Al-Maktoum and others in the U.A.E. It worries Egypt and Jordan. And right now, I'm sure, Adnan Pachachi is carefully confiding to some American journalist that "you Americans will have to stay here to make sure that the Shi'a arc does not destroy all of us. You Americans should have understood that the Sunnis needed to control Iraq precisely because of Iran. You Americans...."

And there will be those in Washington, possibly the very same people who were so eager to believe all those advanced Iraqi Shi'as in exile, about what would happen in Iraq, what could happen in Iraq, if only the Americans came in, from the mafeking and merrymaking ("The liberation of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession" -- Bernard Lewis, 2002) to the eternal friendship that would naturally spring up between "Iraqis" and Americans, to the way that the Sunnis within Iraq would gracefully accept their new status and yield to the far more numerous Shi'a, to the way that Sunnis outside Iraq would be so impressed with the new, Infidel-supported and Infidel-financed Shi'a-dominated Iraq that they would hasten to emulate it.

Shi'a Jive had its turn. Now it's time for the Sunni Jive, to all those visitors, including Ted Koppel for NPR, Madeline Albright, and others famous for believing, for taking at face value, for not seeing through, what they are told by this or that confiding Arab leader or analyst.

The Sunnis inside Iraq will never accept the diminished status that their numbers, and the behavior of past Sunni-dominated regimes, will cause the Shi'a and the Kurds to insist that they must accept. Active fighting may die down now, especially if the Americans are doing the suppressing, as they are, but once the Americans leave, and it becomes clear that no "Iraqi" government can conceivably satisfy both the Sunni and the Shi'a Arabs, or both the Arabs and the Kurds, and with the methods of warfare -- militias in the night, bombs on the street or in the mosques -- having been introduced and here to stay, it is unlikely that "Iraq" will exist in peace. And the Sunnis outside Iraq will have a vested interest in supporting those inside, with money, volunteers, weaponry, and diplomatic assistance. Why would one expect them to do otherwise?

The only unknown is whether or not the Americans will now fall for the Sunni line that they, those Americans, have to remain in Anbar Province and Baghdad not so much to suppress, as to protect ("you brought the Shi'a to power, and now you have to protect the Sunnis -- you owe it to them") them. Some people will be dumb enough to find that line plausible.

Quiet in Iraq is not our goal. Weakening the camp of Islam is our goal. In Iraq, that goal is furthered by unmeetable Sunni demands, and Shi'a attempts, without the Americans any longer to impose those Marquess-of-Queensberry rules, to deal with the Sunnis as the Sunnis would, and have, dealt with them. Outside support on both sides, and effects on Sunni-Shi'a relations outside Iraq, should hardly be cause for Infidel worry.